# [SERVER] re: Production release 1.8.0 of the LambdaMOO server

ThwartedEfforts (abakun@scinc.com)
Wed, 13 Mar 1996 07:38:28 PST

- Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

    At one time, I started to do a server patch to add the :bf_* functionality,
    and my implementation includes what Roger Crew mentions, altho I didn't
    explain it like that in the message I sent in response to Judy's mention of
    it.  The original intent was to overload all bf calls with MOO code, altho I
    explained it as:

    >1) if a builtin is called from SYSTEM_OBJECT, then wiz-only permission checks
    >   (via $server_options) don't take place.  This would make it easier to have
    >   the server check permissions for an action instead of trying to do it in
    >   MOOcode.  In other words:

    Yes, I said 'wiz-only permissions checks don't take place', which is not how
    I meant it.

    Also, I said:

    >2) That the verb on SYSTEM_OBJECT that is called be named "bf_" + the name
    >   of the builtin, to better distinguish between verbs that are handlers for
    >   builtin functions and those that are server verbs (ie do_login_command).
    >   Perhaps "secure_" + builtin name to signify that it's only called when
    >   a $server_options perm check fails.
    >   This also keeps #0:recycle for it's intended purpose.

    Yes, there's the line 'to signify that it's only called when a
    $server_options perm check fails", which is another misunderstanding/typo.

    If you were working from my summary post as to what this feature would be,
    Pavel, I'm sorry for the confusion.

    Roger Crew has made a good point, and he's totally correct as to how the
    operation of this feature should be.

    Andy.